Politics vs. Science at the IPCC
In this post for IER I quote from two of the Lead Authors of the latest IPCC report. It confirms what some of us have been saying for years. The intro:
Those pushing for aggressive government intervention in the name of fighting climate change often claim that “the science is settled” and dismiss any dissenters as “deniers.” The so-called “consensus” is codified in the periodic reports issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The alarmist camp’s repeated references to “peer-review” and the number of organizations behind the IPCC are rhetorically very effective; they have done a great PR job in making it look as if their political solutions really do flow naturally from what the scientists in white lab coats are reporting. But allegations from IPCC authors show that politics and not science drive the process at the IPCC.
As we have documented countless times on these pages (here’s the latest example), the alarmists greatly exaggerate when they claim that aggressive and immediate government action is needed to prevent catastrophe. When you read the actual scientific literature, as opposed to the pithy summaries given by a few outspoken activists, then we see no cause for alarm. As we shall see, the latest findings stress a growing role for adaptation to a changing climate.
In the present post, I’ll walk through the recent statements issued by two bona fide experts on the economics of climate change: Richard Tol and Robert Stavins. Even though both of them played important roles in the latest IPCC report, they have publicly condemned the IPCC process as political, which distorts the underlying science and misleads policymakers and the public. Besides their impeccable credentials on this topic, Tol and Stavins are both supporters of a (modest) carbon tax. Therefore, their strong condemnations of the IPCC process should receive special attention from those who think “the science is settled” and that anyone challenging the alarmists is a “denier.”
This is probably the main reason I’m a climate change skeptic. Not because I’ve done some thorough vetting of the science myself, but just because it seems overwhelmingly obvious to me that all the stuff that gets back to the public at large has essentially gone through the childhood “telephone” game.
Scientists do some research and present their findings to a international bureaucratic panel. The panel puts their spin on it, and sends it to the various national governments. The various national governments put their spin on it, and start drafting press releases and offering up sound bytes to the media. The media put their spin on it and present it to the masses.
So the information most people are using to base their opinions about climate change on has already gone through multiple filters and spin cycles. Suddenly, “climate change may lead to minor problems for certain countries” becomes “the entire human race will go extinct unless you drive a prius. purple monkey dishwasher.”
This is probably the main reason I’m a climate change skeptic. Not because I’ve done some thorough vetting of the science myself, but just because it seems overwhelmingly obvious to me that all the stuff that gets back to the public at large has essentially gone through the childhood “telephone” game.
If that’s the issue, then why not just randomly call up a climatologist at the nearest university and see what he thinks on the matter?
Josiah wrote:
If that’s the issue, then why not just randomly call up a climatologist at the nearest university and see what he thinks on the matter?
You just assume it’s a man!
Because I figure this issue is complicated enough that even the best climatologist couldn’t get very far alone – that’s why the panels are brought together in the first place.
Also because I don’t care that much and would rather play hearthstone and drive a real car.
added irony: I work at a university… in one of the science buildings… on an extremely liberal campus where climate awareness events are happening nearly constantly
maintaining my ignorance is hard work, but I think im up to the challenge
Because I figure this issue is complicated enough that even the best climatologist couldn’t get very far alone – that’s why the panels are brought together in the first place.
Most scientific disciplines are equally complicated (in some cases more so). Are you a skeptic about science generally?
It’s worth noting that both of the folks Bob cites claim the politicization occurs in the Summary for Policy Makers, not in the full report.
Most other scientific disciplines don’t lead people to call for me to dramatically reduce my quality of life in order to help children in Bangladesh 100 years from now.
I don’t really need to be a skeptic on quantum mechanics or whatever, because physicists seem to be totally willing to leave me alone. It’s the climate guys who seemingly want to steal my money and ban a bunch of things I enjoy.
I don’t really need to be a skeptic on quantum mechanics or whatever, because physicists seem to be totally willing to leave me alone. It’s the climate guys who seemingly want to steal my money and ban a bunch of things I enjoy.
Suppose I told you I was skeptical of whether smoking causes cancer because I enjoyed smoking. Am I being rational?
That’s funny. I brought up the cigarette thing in a previous argument about “consensus” and I asked someone (can’t recall who) if the appropriate thing for a smoker in the 1940s was to accept the general consensus that smoking was perfectly healthy, and they said it totally was!
In any case, there is a difference between skepticism and rejection. If you have smoked for years and noticed no ill-effects for it, then yes, I would think it is entirely appropriate to be *skeptical* of research saying it’s terrible for you.
That doesn’t mean said research is wrong. It just means that you have decided for yourself that it’s not something you’re going to spend a lot of time worrying about.
Tel has identified other valid reasons for skepticism. There are plenty of reasons to go around really.
Matt,
I’m not sure there actually was a scientific consensus in the 1940s that smoking was perfectly healthy. But if there had been it would’ve been sensible for an ordinary person to defer to that consensus, just as it’s sensible for someone today to defer to the consensus that smoking does cause cancer (the alternative of having everyone conduct their own study with a sample size of one seems pretty useless).
Or, they could just opt to err on the side of caution if they wanted; And if they didn’t want to, then opt to accept any consequences.
In either case, your right to spend your own money on studies to attemp to convince people doesn’t interfere with others’ right to deny money to such studies and do what they want.
Get rid of government intervention in health care and there will be no free riders except by the consent of the providers – which would be their prerogative.
Health care isn’t a right, it’s a service offered on the market.
All science is based on scepticism, if you don’t get that then you haven’t made the first step. Faith based philosophy is correctly classified as religion. There’s nothing wrong with having a religion, but it isn’t a drop in substitute for science.
Now the way to tell good science from bad science is whether they say things like “Snowfalls will be a thing of the past,” when quite the opposite happens. When people tell you that rising sea level will wipe out our major cities and then buy waterfront land, I think this guy is a successful scam artist but an unsuccessful scientist. When someone tells me that electricity makes the lightbulb come on, I turn it on and off a few times and check it, then I can conclude it does work. See the difference?
All science is based on scepticism
Science involves being skeptical about some kinds of things but not others (if it were skeptical about everything then it couldn’t serve as a source of knowledge). A person who claims to be skeptical about whether the earth is more than 10,000 years old, for example, is not scientific.
Without skepticism, that would still be the consensus………
You have completely convinced me that you have no idea how science works.
Tel, we have been through this before. You continue to quote a few media speculations as though they represent the climate “consensus”. Skepticism is fine, but to reject a straw man is more like denialism.
The issue that Matt M cites – that belief in quantum science does not require you to make any sacrifice is surely a red herring. If belief in quanta did require you to alter your standard of living (or accept the fact that your actions caused damage) then you would be irrational to change your opinion of it because of that.
An important fact is that the consensus has developed during a period of unprecedented research. I think there are no situations where a huge research effort has led to a strengthening consensus that has later been disproved. Whatever consensus there was on lung cancer in the 1950’s was largely based on hearsay, and as soon as some scientists actually did the research the consensus quickly coalesced around the one that was supported by evidence.
“If belief in quanta did require you to alter your standard of living (or accept the fact that your actions caused damage) then you would be irrational to change your opinion of it because of that.”
Technically this is true. I probably phrased it poorly. More generally, my skepticism stems from the fact that the fact that all of these scientists (many of whom just so happen to be leftists) have suddenly discovered a problem that threatens to destroy life as we know it and – surprise surprise – the ONLY solutions they propose are the same types of redistributive economic policies that Socialists have been demanding since the 19th century.
What a remarkable coincidence that is! What luck!
But I don’t really believe in coincidence or luck, therefore I am skeptical. That’s not to say I immediately reject any notion that the Earth is warming, I’m just generally skeptical when a group of people discover a problem that can ONLY be solved via government central planning.
G Edward Griffin actually predicted this exact scenario in “The Creature From Jekyl Island.”
It is important to separate the science the climate scientists produce from the policy proposals the same scientists produce. I trust their expertise in climate science, and believe their conclusions about the climate. What we should do about it is a separate question and requires different expertise.
As far as I can remember the only world wide policy that compares at all is the Montreal Protocol. This seems to have been quite successful, although the scale is far, far smaller. Do you think there are any lessons here? Could the ozone problem have been solved another way?
I think there are no situations where a huge research effort has led to a strengthening consensus that has later been disproved.
I have a link I want to share, but Bob’s site won’t allow it to be posted, for some reason.
Search for “The 1970′s Global Cooling Compilation – looks much like today”
This is one of the links:
Schneider vs. Schneider
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsdWTBNyvX0
Description:
The Late Dr. Steven Schneider compared;
1978 Global Cooling Alarmism vs. 2008 Global Warming Alarmism
Testing:
The 1970′s Global Cooling Compilation – looks much like today
😀
The global cooling scenario is nothing like the global warming situation today. If you were to survey the scientific literature in the 1970s there would be very few papers compared to today looking at climate trends. The game is given away here: “During the 1970s the media promoted global cooling alarmism.” It was the media not the scientists. There was little research and no scientific consensus. What was apparent was that the climate was very poorly understood. The climate was cooling unexpectedly. At the time some put this down to rapidly approaching ice-age. After huge amount of research since, we now know it was because sulphate aerosols cool the Earth and humans were emitting vast quantities of suplhates – remember acid rain? Since we have reduced these emissions the sulphates rapidly wash out and the climate reverts to the underlying warming. So we see the usual pattern – lack of knowledge, speculation, more research leading to greater knowledge and a closer consensus.
Why not randomly call up a Meteorologist, so you can talk to someone who might know a bit of science.
Tel,
Is it your view that meteorologists know science but, say, atmospheric physicists do not?
Richard Lindzen is pretty clued up, and John Christy is not too bad. Who were you thinking of?
https://heartland.org/s-fred-singer
Does this guy count as an atmospheric physicist?
Secretly, I think he is really an electrical engineer, but in order to fully study his credentials, I’d need to check the credentials of the person who awarded those credentials… hmmm, actually I’d need to check the credentials of the person who awarded that person… no wait, the person before that.
How about Joanne Simpson?
How about Freeman Dyson?
http://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2009/10/climate-modelling-nonsense/
Sorry, you got me on a roll, I just feel the need to link to more atmospheric physicists.
If you randomly called up a meteorologist, what do you think he would tell you? By calling at random, you would most likely get the opinion shared by the majority. What do you think would be the chance of getting an opinion that rejected AGW? If you reply with a figure, we could perhaps do some digging to see if you are right. I will stick my neck out and say that I think a random poll of meteorologists would give more than 85% agreeing with AGW. If your figure is very much lower, we should be able to establish who is closer to the truth. If your figure is not very much different then what is your point?
Let’s ask a random “Climate Expert” from 1961… oh it seems that every single one of them was absolutely sure the world must be getting colder.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00B11FB385B147A93C2AA178AD85F458685F9
You know it must be true, because it was published in the New York Times.
If you want something even weirder, check out a modern global temperature chart… there was no measured cooling in 1961! Go figure.
Oh dear oh dear oh dear. This old chestnut. William Connelly surveyed the climate papers from 1965 to 1975. 7 predicted cooling, 42 predicted warming and 20 were neutral. What cooling consensus?
As you point out, the world had been cooling for a few years. This makes the majority of warming predictions somewhat surprising unless you have a rudimentary understanding. We have “gone figured” as you put it, and the answer is clearly down to aerosols.
if this teaches anything it is not to believe everything the media tells you. The majority view of the science was for warming, but the media choose to hype up a “cooling scare”. Go figure.
Seek help.
http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/the-economics-of-political-correctness